That car sounds like diesel poop
New Ford GT a v6??? WTF
- Thread starter Eleanor14
- Start date
That car sounds like diesel poop
You are smoking crack. That thing sounds awesome.
Yea if you like the exhaust sound of someone gargling mouthwash
:lol:
There's a ton of them. Mine had 150k when I got rid of it and it ran fine, perfect compression on all 4 cylinders, and the car got beat on for 150k miles.
Those would be the same displacement correct? The "no replacement for displacement" phrase would be for a situation in which two motors had identical upgrades and different displacements. So like a fully built 4.6 compared to a fully built 5.8. Correct? That phrase I don't believe works with two motors of the same displacement. You can't tell me that if ford would have put as much time into that v8 and then put twins on it that it wouldn't make more power? Koenigsegg seems to believe the v8 works fine, don't see a Ferrari, porsche, or Mclearn that touches the agera or One. On a side note the car should have a v8 because it's a muscle car just like it originated with. Just my opinion though.
I don't know what the sales #'s are for GTR's - but if you think you can touch the 05/06 FGT for less that $175k you're delusional. They are going UP in value, not down. Unless you find one that is wrecked or mechanically trashed good luck.
You would be correct, it doesn't sound good
Yea it is a tt v6 but the car is made for le mans and I think the class it will run in has engine size restrictions. I dont think ford will up and drop the v8 from the mustang but im sure eventually the possibility of only having a tt v6 mustang is very probable. It is a little sad but if you can pump out that much power out of a v6 thats very impressive. I still prefer a tt v8 concept though.
You are so naive it is unreal. Everything from your SRT info to NSX being a clown . You really should just stop posting since it is clear you don't have a clue about ANYTHING you type.
Since when has the FGT EVER been considered a muscle car?!?!?!?! Seriously?! Its an exotic sports car! So let me understand this.......presumably you named all the muscle cars you know in your head and in that list was the FGT? I might as well label the Audi R8 a muscle car too while we are at it. Good grief.
Last edited:
Would I consider the original gt40 a muscle car? Yeah it had a big 427. The new one 05 was supposed to be a retro design that was based off the original. I'm not sure how an Audi R8 would be on the list. Its from Germany not America.
Quite simple, the Audi R8 doesn't belong in the muscle car list and neither does the Ford GT. BTW The FGT and the Audi R8 share more in common than the FGT does with any classic muscle car. So is a big V8 the only qualifier for a muscle car? LMAO
Last edited:
The S7 had a 427, so was it a muscle car too?
Well honestly I didn't know that the fgt had much in common with the r8. I would like to know how it is more similar to the r8 then the original. It must be some place other then the looks, and design. I just considered the original gt40 a muscle car because it was made in the muscle car era, had a large displacement v8 engine, and was badass. You could probably say the same about the mustang today, it doesn't have much in common with its original and we still consider it a muscle car. This is all just my opinion.
Now this is a good ones! I like the s7 looks and sounds badass, but I would not consider a s7 a muscle car because 1. It didn't have a predecessor that came from the muscle car era 2. The 427 wasn't a big block. Again my opinion. I don't want to piss anybody off but I don't like the 6 cylinder. I don't give two f**ks about the gtr or any other fast car that doesn't have a v8. I'm not saying they aren't fast or can't be fast. Never said that. But I will say that they will never sound as good as a badass v8 n/a or FI. In my opinion american cars should have a v8 (one exception is the viper) and make it better then anybody else. Some have said it before that one day there will no longer be v8 muscle cars. Well that will be a sad day in hell.
You need to read the article again. It's a street car based on a race car for a race series with rules limiting engine size and output.
I read that and totally get what you are saying. I love the looks of the car, probably one of the best looking supercars period but I wish for the production model they would have used a different engine. All I'm saying
So what were the supercars of the 60s? What car(s) initiated the class and how is the GT40 not apart of that class? Also, the winning GT40s in 1968 and 1969 were both 5.0s. As a purpose built racecar you go where you have to go and you do whatever you have to do with the car to make it succeed, and with class homoligation rules the production car is dictated by the goals of the racecar. With that, I'm not 100% certain but I would think like many race classes, the car and powertrain have to be production units together, and not just the body. Don't quote me on that but that's a very real possibility that would mean they never had an option to use a V8 because the V8s were never the best option for the racing class.
I didn't know they changed it to a 302. The two previous years it was a 427. I don't doubt all the stuff to conform with race regulation. Either way it would be just as successful street car with a v8 in my opinion. But your right it probably was never even in the design
Users who are viewing this thread
